|
E-mail which we recieved on February 20, 2002:
Why are your descriptions of the legal viability of owning
land on mars vague? Is it because you don't really want to
accept that goverments of the first countries to land people
on mars would probably block any moves to form privatly
owned, extra-terrestrial federations/republics. There seems
to be a dilema here: the choice is between overbearing,
unambitious goverments exploring mars - or mercenaries
declaring private ownership of martian land and asteroids to
set up a profit driven economy to rape these planets of there
natural resources in order to create the same inequalities
which trouble earth - and having children doesn't change the
perception that the ideas of freedom, and capatalism or 'free
markets' are incompatable. Why not consider a third way: at
the moment mars is neutral and owned by no-one and is free
for scientists to explore - why don't the space exploring
nations agree on international space rules (like shipping
rules - requirement to help any other ships in trouble and
maintain cooperative comms)and then leave mars to be explored
and made habitable by a thicker CO2 atmosph. by anyone with
the capability to do so.
On your 'Why NASA will never go to mars page' your quite
right in saying that the influence of the foothold of big
business and congress will limit mars exploration - but these
factors are an unfortunate after-effect of something that was
originally a good scientific idea - to develope cheap,
reusable plane-like, non-rocket reliant space shuttles. Your
idea is instead to use up copious amounts of inefficient
rocket fuel so you can go to mars, mine for fuel, burn out
another planet and then presumably move onto Europa and
beyond until eventually God has to step in and say "Alright
children. Youv'e had enough now. Don't ruin your apetite".
Why not continue on from the most recent space travel
developements using scientists that are anti-establ. rather
than a DIY, cowboy assault on space.
The reason I'm mailing is because I was looking for some
interesting sites on this subject area and became rather
worried when I came across your's. Like you say yourself
about big business, your plans aren't "evil" but they may be
influenced by social forces which are more like this -
scientific stagnancy, fear of change, short-sightedness...
-which are strange qualities for a plan which is as
superficially radical as going to mars. Why are you
conservative? Why do you like big business? -there is a
difference between tolerance and ignoring a problem - was
Sept 11th not an obvious enough sign of the way that ordinary
families, like your own, can suffer because of the hate that
big business can encur when it supports power institutions
and tries to force capatilism on the world. I'm afraid that
many people think like you & Mars - an oppurtunity to start
again with a clean slate - is going to become another USA - a
landscape dominated by plains, land seperated into regular
shaped states, a rush to mine minerals for prosperity (the
gold rush) subdivisions auctioned of cheaply or for free,
towns are planned, the natives are ejected - the indians
(scientists in the case of mars), the land is overcultivated,
a nation is enslaved by industry and economy, wasteful use of
fuel and pollution, a dominant race and segregation and so
on. How many times are we going to make the same fundamental
mistakes in these kind of projects, before we learn that this
model, as with the roman empire and the american federation
before it, is a failure? Mars won't be a solution to earth's
problems, it will be just a place to displace them to. I know
you are only dreaming up possibilities but your generations
thinking will dominate mars exploration for the forseeable
future. Are your dreams for mars influenced by a childhood
interest in American history & the wild west combined with
modern ideas about free markets and the 'american dream' (in
the economic sense)? Could you have romanticised these ideas
into something that does not reflect reality? I have to agree
with you that Mars certainly captures the imagination. I
picture it when the C02 ice-caps are sublimating as 200 years
of plant growth has thickened the CO2 in the atmosphere to
create a green house effect- and hydrogen fixing equipement
has been installed at the edges of reservoir shaped
formations, combining the piped oxygen from plant growth
buildings with the Hydrogen to give H2O to fill small seas
and the valles marineris canyon system - maybe a colony of a
million or so of a mixed bunch of people live in a network
of oxygenised pod homes in a coastal cove to shield them from
the martian plain sand storms - maybe there are a series of
rail-linked,inland settlements made up of networks of
comfortably sized homes dug out of the ground(again the
because of the storms)as in star-wars ep.1 - maybe some
people live in river side homes along the valles marineris,
built into the walls of the canyon sides, prefering to work
on the technology material mining plants, like silicon mining
or an equivelant conductor (or hydroelectric and geothermal
power station maintainance) and ship the produce down the
valles to the main coastal settlements in return for there
home & luxuries, vehicle, education, general social welfare,
and supplies. Any one individual, regardless of age, race,
gender, could build and own home(s)/premises that do not
intefere with others' or essential services buildings and
could be given help in doing so by experts(working under same
condtions as miners) if the location is safety approved.
Otherwise they can explore and build as they please but there
safety is not guarenteed. The local networks and internetwork
of homes could also be linked for digital communication
mediums. Mars could be a beutiful habitat with its pale
yellow turned bright blue frosty skies, vast plains,
sometimes clearer- closer view of interesting stars,
spectacular plain sand storms and tornadoes, intruiging
canyons and distant view of an abandoned, regenerating blue
planet called earth. Yet I fear that economic theories about
the not so free 'free-market' and a the dominance of an
unhealthy tolerance for vain ambition and greed could turn
the red planet into a nightmare project leading to it living
up to the latin meaning of its name- maybe the romans were
ear marrking at as a future venue for the on-going war
between one set of selfish people and another.
|
Reply sent February 21, 2002:
Well, Mr. S.,
I debated whether or not to respond to your vitriolic message, but I
appreciate the fact that you took a considerable amount of time to let me
know your thoughts, so I will reply.
First of all, I didn't just have a childhood fascination with the American
West. I was raised in the American West. I grew up in Fort Collins and
Boulder Colorado. I grew up surrounded with the legacy of the early
pioneers and miners who took a parched plot of earth, mined it, irrigated
it, cultivated it and turned a near desert into verdant fields of corn and
wheat punctuated by patches of small forests which mark the location of the
towns and cities of the west (the only places where trees grow in the plains
out west). Within these little oases, squirrels and chipmunks scamper about
and children play under the shade of giant oak and cotton wood trees. The
old mining towns have become ski resorts, a source of wholesome
entertainment for families from all over the world. We would often go to
visit friends who still lived in the old homesteader homes which their great
grandparents had built with their own hands. I enjoyed my childhood in the
modern wild west, it sure beat living in tepees out in the bitter cold of
the high plains and chasing after the buffaloes on horseback, like the
Indians. So, yes, I was influence by "a childhood interest in" the history
which I encountered daily in my home town.
The American dream is not such a bad thing. Here in America we meet people
daily who have risked their lives crossing vast oceans or crossing armed
borders to have a shot at the American dream. But it seems that immigration
to America is a one way thing. I dare say that not too many people emigrate
from America to England, but I sure have met a lot of Englishmen and
Englishwomen here. The American dream consists of the chance to free ones
self from the slavery of poverty, to have two cars in the garage belonging
to a house which is on a piece of land large enough to have a puppy and a
swing set for the kids in the back yard, and enough free time and disposable
income to go on a family vacation every once in a while, to be able to
attend the church of one's choice several time a week and to be able to give
generously to the charity of ones choosing. That is what America, both
north and south is all about.
My ancestors traveled on wooden boats from European Spain to Puerto Rico in
the Americas looking for the same thing. You bet I want to create another
USA on Mars! I want my children to have the same options that my parents
and great great grand parents had. To flee congested countries full of
poverty and oppressions for a land where there was freedom and abundant
resources which hard working people could convert into a prosperous and
satisfying life. Jesus Christ said, "Come unto me, all ye that labour and
are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn
of me; for I am meek and lowly of heart: and you shall find rest unto your
souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light" (Matthew 11:28-30). I
want Mars to be a land whose yoke is easy and whose hand is stretched out to
welcome the weary.
Alas, too many elitist socialist intellectuals from Europe came to America
during the last century and managed to wreck the foundation of America by
means of the social revolution of the sixties. Without the old foundation
the superstructure of America is crumbling, a big chunk came off on
September 11. Therefore, it is time to move on and build a new America in
space, on Mars and on the Asteroids. That should keep us busy for the next
several thousand years. After that our descendants may need to build new
Americas in the nearby stars, throughout the Milky Way and in millions of
galaxies through out the universe, until God does, indeed, tell us that our
task has been accomplished.
The reason that our descriptions of "the legal viability of owning land on
mars [are] vague" is that, surprise, we don't yet own Mars so we cannot
really sell land on Mars outright. However, the current owner, God, the
Almighty-Creator of heaven and Earth (and Mars) seems to have placed Mars on
sale. The price is negotiable, but it will probably be anywhere between one
billion to two hundred billion dollars, which is the price of establishing
the first settlement on Mars. The socialistic nations of the Earth, which
is almost all of them, do not want any new Americas to be established, so I
doubt that they would risk that possibility by sending people to Mars and
establishing colonies which may revolt and create independent states.
Otherwise they would have done so already. Consequently, Mars is still for
sale. I don't have the money my self, but I am offering to any interested
parties my services as an expert price negotiator and executor of the sale
of Mars. The reason we are not offering many details is that we are still
working on the sales contract. I am in contact with lawyers and other
interested parties to work out a reasonable mechanism for funding an
independent colony on Mars. Our colony will not be a private colony, but,
rather, an independent colony. We are trying to save our descendants both
on Mars and on Earth the horrors of an interplanetary revolutionary war by
declaring independence for Mars before we even send the first party.
The beauty of the opportunity offered by Mars is that it is a competition, a
race. It will put different political systems and social organizations into
a competition to determine who is able to colonize Mars mostly quickly and
inexpensively. Whoever wins will get a whole world full of resources to
promote their philosophy and agenda. I want to conquer Mars for those who
want "to preserve and promote the traditional western values of freedom and
opportunity secured through personal responsibility, limited representative
democratic government, and the rule of law based on Judeo-Christian
principles" (excerpt from the Martian Declaration). Mars is for sale to the
lowest bidder, we shall see who gets there first!
Sincerely,
Raul E. Lopez, MD.
|
February 21, 2002
"Well, Mr. S., I debated whether or not to respond to your
vitriolic message, but I appreciate the fact that you took a
considerable amount of time to let me know your thoughts, so
I will reply." - that was a bit patrionising - do you think
I'm beneath you for daring to question your intentions, and I
didn't take a 'considerable amount of time' (I type quick)
which is a euphism for 'are you obsessed' which is supposed
help you think that you some sort of disciple where as I am a
lowley 'englishman' (I'm not even english).
Your childhood does seem great, but why ruin your memories
by romanticising them(they are wonderful enough
independantly)- I was beginning to think you were being
sarcastic & having a laugh at my expense.
This is the problem I had- the past can seem wonderful to
everyone, but only as long as you leave it where it belongs,
in history. When you try to recreate it in the context of a
naturally changing world, it's like someone looking at how an
animal (our ancestor) hunts its prey and then copying it-
animals 'kill' because it's their means of survival, but when
humans try it, with all their knowledge and experience, it
takes on a sinister quality and becomes 'murder'. The
american dream began as Irish/Hispanic/European peasants
dreaming of a free land where the were not subject to the
whims of cruel landlords and upper class politics- but it
turned sour because one desire piled on top of another until
there was greed. Sure, people should always be allowed 50
cars, acres of land and a big cigar if thats what they want-
but why do they need it- are they not squandering their
freedom? - does this mean there's something wrong with people
who are happy with 1 car and trains, a public park and the
freedom to explore their world, provided they don't infringe
on others right to do so.
The point is, I'm presuming your not stupid and can accept
that as well as some big dreams, there's some fairly big
flaws in a system where people regularly pull guns out on
each other, the software industry's dominated by a
meglomaniac pursuing his own particular version of the
american dream, there's a conspiciously large % of the prison
population made up of hispanics and afro-caribeans, coming on
for about a half-million subscribers to 'KuKluxKlan Weekly'
and a dominant president who is basically a performing
chimpanzee, learning speeches handed to him by advisers -
What I love about the US is that if anything is ever achieved
(eg.apollo) you know it is truelly great as it must have had
the strength to fight through great adversity.
In the knowledge that there are deep imperfections, in what
the innocent little seed of 'the amer. dream' eventually
grows into, how can you want to package this up & send it to
mars to torment the next generation, leaving them to pick up
the pieces, again? Ask your children if they want to be 'a
justifiable corporate success' with a nice, neat and ordered
conventional 'Judeo-Christian LIMITED democracy' penned-in
inside their little 'allocated section', OR whether they just
want to be free to discover the mysteries of the planets and
beyond("Give to caesar what belongs to him(money), but give
to God what belongs to him"- Jesus' economic policy).
I can't get angry at the farmers from the generation of
americans who came after the indians had been killed, as they
were acting while the rest of the world just pondered- they
made mistakes, but all risky, pioneering activities envolve
these. What does frustrate me is when a people are in full
knowledge that something has changed and moved on because of
improvements, and they return to the past and horifically
abuse a old idea for there selfish modern context, arrogantly
assuming they can achieve success with it when it has already
passed its time frame and died. We learn fundamental beliefs
and logic from the wisdom of the past (eg.the concept of the
bible, torah, quoran, 8 steps to enlightenment, mathematics,
physics, chemistry, biology..etc) which will always resonate,
but the methods of their implementation change (ie.basic
communication>paganism>religion>spiritual science,...>pure &
unified spiritualism?) and if people are too scared to change
they can unfortunately try to return to a previous step and
claim that they've jumped to a final answer to our
problems(eg.Hitler creating a roman empire style
'fatherland'). If you look at mathematics there is a
principal of induction- begin with a question-solve step
A,B,C..reach the conclusion.
Why are you trying to have lawyers set up land ownership
laws (which will always be subteley in favour of congress- as
if you are a recognising poor service by seeing the lawyers,
then not complaining about the system by accepting a pay-off
and therefore making it worse for those after you) when you
have no scientific(step A) or ethical plan(step B) and can't
convince anyone to support you using a reasoned
arguement(step C) rather than utilising people's weakness for
political / economic panacetas (which is originally a Nazi
idea by the way).It reminds be of how our governing Labour
party, lead by Tony Blair over here, got to power using
dreamy pledges to get themselves legally empowered and
leaving all the actual planning to a hurried frenzy within
their term and therefore failing on all accounts.
Why not set up a web-ring to collect funds for the
independant exploration of mars project which works in
cooperation with knowledgable NASA scientists but isn't
funded by tax payers so that it can't be interfered with by
politics- they're now trying experiments on earth terrains
which look extra-terr. to see what they could do on mars. If
you look at Physics you have the Eisteinian principle that
'everything is relative'- i.e. everything is true and useful
within its limited frame- or morally speaking- in its time
frame. The USA's philosophy has had its time and is
crumbling- they could make a memorial park with a picture of
what new york used to look like at ground zero- not another
twin tower for another duped phycopathic weapon of extremism
to destroy.
The 'american dream' is like an old majestic cathedral- it
began as a beautiful concept in an architect's head, some
people were forced to die to build it, but then people used
it well, then misused it and committed many cruel deeds, then
they lost interest, and now it sits as a passified,
experienced, deshevalled, wise old building- but some zany
new evangelical 'healers' are in town and want to paint it
red and use it for mass religious orgies so that the people
can regain there sense of a 'moral fiber!'. I don't think
they should go gravedigging and dance all over a dressed up
corpse -do you?
If you could perfectly create another early western US on
mars it wouldn't be any less threatening than any other new
idea- but the point is that you can't- you're not a simple
minded farmer, you're not living a hand to mouth existance,
you aren't blessed with a desire to escape the past and build
a better life- you want the same life with more of everything
and less of me, you don't ignore the economy, you don't go to
church have a weekly conversation with the neighbouring
farmer- you go to learn quotes out of context, so your
anti-biblical agenda has more gravitas..etc. Does the idea of
taking a massive step back and starting groundhog day again
to repeat a story that you already know the conclusion to not
depress you?
It's funny how word's like 'vitriolic' and 'intelectual'
always seem to pop up when an orthadox approach is
questioned, isn't it? I'm related to a prominent figure from
a similar academic field as you who likes to patrionise me
aswell, so it becomes depressing how many cliches crop up -
but what's more interesting is that she profoundly claims
she's atheist and socialist- just goes to show that left and
right wings are just different sides of the same coin with
liberalism a mix of the two on its edge - it's time for
something completely different.Why do I get the feeling you
won't mention any of this on your website I wonder?
|
Dear Mr. S
I am sorry that I did not write back sooner, but I was sick last week and I
also happened to have received a number of e-mails during that time so I
have been trying to catch up on my correspondence. I like to compose
replies that are at least somewhat carefully worded and carefully thought
out, and this can take some time. I guess that is because I am obsessed
with my mission. I apologize if I sounded patronizing or sarcastic. That
was not my intention. Sometimes people write to us using very offensive and
insulting language without having given any thought to what we are
proposing. They seem to be offended only by the fact that our idea is new
and unusual. Sometimes it is hard to tell who is serious and who simply
want to vent their life's frustrations against something they find unusual
and which, therefore, they see as weak or odd. Because of the length of
your letter I got the impression that you had a seriously considered and
well thought out disagreement with our methods. However, your antagonism
towards the American way of life surprised me and somewhat offended me.
Here in the United States we are not exposed to the deep level of dislike
for this country that exists in other parts of the world. I must admit that
I do not quite understand why such hatred exists. I think that people hate
a Hollywood caricature of the USA, not the real America.
For example, you say that there are half a million subscribers to the KKK
weekly. I live in what some consider to be the deep south, in South
Carolina, the state where the civil war began. I recently moved here from
Louisiana, which is considered part of the even deeper south and which is
probably the most corrupt state in the nation. I have never met a KKK
member and I also have never heard of the KKK weekly except in your letter.
I would be extremely surprised if that publication, if it exists at all,
comes even close to having 500,000 subscribers. However, even if that is
true, that is still a drop in the bucket compared to the huge population of
300 million people who live in this country. That is little more than one
in a thousand people. I think that one "waco" for every thousand people is
not a bad ratio. How many neo-Nazis live in Germany, how many IRA
terrorists live in the British Isles, and how many ETA terrorists live among
the Basques in Spain?
Also, I did a quick internet search on the Klan since I actually know very
little about it. Apparently the modern Knights of the Ku Klux Klan was
started in the 1950's as a pro-white political party (to promote the
Northern European roots of the United States) and is not actually the same
thing as the old Ku Klux Klan. They say they use that name because if gives
them publicity. I suspect that there are several groups which call
themselves the Ku Klux Klan in addition to this one, and none of them are
direct descendants of the real KKK. The real KKK is now defunct and it
operated as a white resistance movement in the 1800's after the civil war in
pockets of the South where whites were a minority, and where the invading
northerners had placed government in the hands of recently freed slaves
inexperienced in government and in the hands of white Yankee immigrants from
the north who came south to take advantage of a bad situation. From what I
can tell by having lived in the South for many years, the Northern armies
were not very nice to the Southern white population and left the South in
ruins. Many places have never recovered economically from the war to this
day. Also, Southern whites did indeed do a lot of bad things to the blacks
early in the 1900s, but most of those whites were not KKK members. It is
incorrect to blame the KKK for all the racial tension in the United States.
One does not have to be a member of the KKK to be a racist. On the other
hand, one must not forget that Southern blacks have also done a lot of bad
things to southern whites too. Anyways, that is a brief synopsis of the KKK
according to what I found on the internet. I did not see any reference to
the KKK weekly which you mentioned in your letter.
Concerning the disproportionate number of Hispanics and Afro-Caribbeans in
the prisons of the United States, that is simply because a disproportionate
number of people of Hispanic and Afro-Caribbean descent are criminals. I am
from Puerto Rico, whose population could be described as composed of both
Afro-Caribbeans and Euro-Caribbeans, all of whom are Hispanic, and the crime
rate there is horrible. Houses must have bars on their windows, they must
be fitted with alarm systems, and many communities are gated. Much of the
crime is unarmed, such as house break-ins while occupants are not present,
and auto thefts, so guns alone are not to blame. Many other countries in
the Caribbean and Latin America have an even worse crime rate. When these
people come to the USA, some of them bring their criminal tendencies with
them in the same way that Sicilian immigrants brought the Mafia to the USA
from Europe.
People in the USA do not regularly pull guns out on each other. I have
lived in the western hemisphere my entire life, and, thank God, I have never
had a gun pulled on me, nor have I pulled one out on anyone else. Of the
hundreds of people I have met personally, I have only met four people who
were involved in an altercation where a gun was used and three of those were
in Puerto Rico, the other was in Louisiana, which is basically like an
Afro-Caribbean state of the United State. Unfortunately, a disproportionate
amount of the crime committed in this country is by people of African
ancestry. Why that is the case is the subject of much debate. Slavery is
surely a factor. However, judging from the high levels of crime and
corruption in the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa, I would say that some of
the fault lies with individuals, not just with the system. I don't think
that Northern Europeans are better in any way than other groups of people,
after all, I am of Southern European ancestry and my children are half
Persian. However, I believe that Protestant Christianity, practiced for
several generations has a decriminalizing effect on families and ethnic
groups. It is this former religion of the Northern Europeans which has made
the difference. Unfortunately, they no longer practice it.
You said that I go to church "to learn quotes out of context, so [that my]
anti-biblical agenda has more gravitas." I hope you will clarify that
statement for me. I devoted seven years of my life to the formal study of
the Bible. I hold a Master's of Divinity Degree and surpass the
requirements necessary to become an ordained Baptist minister (even though I
later became an ophthalmologist by profession and have never been ordained).
I took the time to acquire this degree in order to develop a deeper
understanding of the teachings of the Bible and I think that I have a better
grasp of its teachings than most people, simply because most people do not
devote this much time and effort to its study. Please point out to me where
my agenda is anti-biblical and where I am quoting the Bible out of context.
The American dream or the American way of life is simply freedom and
opportunity guaranteed by a government whose power is limited, whose
structure takes the form of a representative democracy, and whose laws are
based on the legal principles found in the Bible. I think that a lot of the
problems in the United States and in the Americas in general are the result
of slavery. This practice was a grievous inconsistency in the history of
the Western Hemisphere. This does not mean that the American way of life
and it goals were wrong, it means that those who practiced it were deficient
in the application of its principles. The solution is a more uniform
application of those principles which constitute the American way of life so
that it includes more people. The solution is not the abandonment of that
philosophy, which is what you are proposing.
In a free society some people will abuse their freedom and use it to buy "50
cars, acres of land and a big cigar." Others will use it to drop out of
college to write computer code for an obscure machine called the personal
computer (as Bill Gates did), and others will use it to build churches,
Christian schools, hospitals and orphanages. The agreement people in a free
society have with each other is that I will not tell you that you cannot buy
your 50 cars if you do not tell me that I cannot build my church.
Experience teaches that a restriction on one kind of freedom produces
restrictions on all freedoms.
One of the foundational principles of a free society is the right to engage
in the private ownership of property, including the private ownership of
land. My house is my castle. On my property, within reason, I can do
pretty much as I please. I can remodel my house, I can tear it down and
build another one, I can build a play ground for my children, I can plant
flowers or a tree. You cannot do that in a condominium. I can also buy a
larger piece of land and build a church, create a housing subdivision, open
up a factory, a private Christian school or a museum. You can't do that on
public land. A second principle of freedom is the right to reap the fruits
of one's labor. If I invest my life's savings to open up a bicycle shop I
should benefit from the profits generated. On the other hand if I decide,
against the advice of my friends, to open up another restaurant in a town
that already has too many restaurants, I should be free to fail.
Nevertheless, it is possible that my restaurant will become the next
McDonald's hamburger chain and make me rich.
Because of these two principles, I think that the sale of some type of
rights to land on Mars is the best way to fund the colonization of Mars. It
lays the foundation for the private ownership of land, and allows those who
invest in this venture to profit from it. I actually attended the first of
"the Case for Mars" meetings in Boulder, Colorado which led to the formation
of the Mars Society. That organization wants to raise money for the
colonization of Mars the way you suggested, by taking private donations. If
they can do it, fine. However, I don't think that people will simply donate
the kind of sums necessary to send anyone to Mars. However, they may invest
that kind of money if they think they can get something in return. Giving
contributors the chance to benefit financially from their contributions to
our organization is my ethical plan, step B as you call it. My scientific
plan (step A in you letter) is to establish a base on the Martian moons
first and to begin production of oxygen fuel before proceeding on to Mars.
Finally, in order to show you how fair minded I am, I will soon post your
letters on my website accompanied with my replies under a new section to be
entitled either "opposing views" or "letters to the editor." I hope you
will write back.
Sincerely,
Raul E. Lopez
|
March 18, 2002
When I used phrases such as 'KKK weekly' I was attempting to use a sort of exadurated humour in order to soften the blow of discussing a fairly depraived, dark side of US culture. So obviously I didn't literally mean that I had knowledge of an actual publication of this name. Taking things too literally seems to be a reoccurring theme on your interzonga site.
I have no doubts that the unofficial KKK groups, white supremesists, religious cults, fake christian healers and secret discriminatory groups of various kinds exist in the USA more so than in other nations for more significant reasons than the size of the diverse population. If I want proof of this I only have to read a journal or watch an independant TV company documentary or search for 'white supremesy' / 'nigger' / 'occult & wicca' / 'assemblies of god' / 'the catholic channel' / 'cerimony of the owl' / 'waco' / 'oklahoma' / 'columbus school shootings blamed on Marilyn Manson' and so on, on the net. Only a few months back I was disgusted almost to the point of vomitting as I sat down to watch a channel4 documentary on a secret KKK organisation in south east USA that still perform yearly fire torch lit processions in full uniform. More significantly, they live in isolated communes where they have group discussions formulating policies connecting their theories about
geographical segregation with biblical passages and planning the next campaign move, completely unquestioned by anyone and with the capability to share their racist slurs & black 'jokes' with the public via a public access TV channel. The leader of the group, bible in hand, proceeded to travel to mixed race urban settlements to the north and,protected by fencing, delivered a speech claiming that the only reasonable system for maintaining law, order and a moral fabric (an american 'super-stucture' you might say) was to give white protestant people their rightful god-given place as negros' and hispanics' superiors. This was all delivered in front of a small crowd mainly made up of afro-amrcs who were informed that white people meant no harm to them as long as they accepted that their culture, religion and values were inferior in terms of a system of goverment, but since it was the free USA they should be allowed to continue their culture, just
somewhere else in the country where it didn't pollute whites'.(Whatever 'white' means - some ignorantly strung together nuggets of celtic and germanic cultures - you might say a hollywood viewpoint of european cultures)
If you want a more specific example you can look at the case of Timothy McVeigh. After becoming disallusioned with the US's casual tolerance of violence and the crueler aspects of military culture as a result of his horrific experiences in the Gulf War, he was driven into further misery by the Waco massacre and the attack on a Neo-Nazi family. Tim was coersed into an envolvement with one of your non-existant extemist groups, the Eloheme City white-supremesist christian community. Spurred on by their conspiracy theories and sacarin-sweet, puritanical, homely 'innocence', he began to plan the Oklahoma ATF building bombing as holy war against a corrupt state where the casualties were 'collatoral damage' as he had seen with Iraqi civilians. His mind set was very similar to the 9/11 suicide pilots - caught between a well founded feeling that something was not quite right about the way his country was governed, & cowardly but persuasive madmen feeding his suspicious paranoia
with rediculously oversimplified conspiracy theories supported by goverment influences as they try to eliminate opposition to their policies by driving these elements towards mockable neo-nazi extremism (they unsuccessfully attempted to cover-up Bob Ricks of the FBI and possible secret agent Andrius Strassmier's meeting with McVeigh in a sleasy stripclub the night prior to the bombing presumably to inform him that the next day was a suitable time to go ahead as the building would be almost empty).
Of course, these are extreme cases but they are undeniably indicative of the summit of a volcano of subterrainian racism that is ready to explode. You can see that this problem underlies almost all aspects of the american superstructure eg. last week, NewYork was trying to select a book to officially recommend to its citizens following on from Chigaco, LA and Seattle, in order to improve literacy - several contenders were eliminated because they were not racially diverse enough, edgy enough for NYrkrs or critically acclaimed - as they narrowed it down they suddenly decided they needed to have more Jewish and 'Black' people on the panel, not because they were better critics but purely because of their race - so they narrowed it down to the story of a black girl unusually from a Jewish family and the eventual loser, the story of a Korean immigrant - here the better book was not chosen but the one which was least offensive in light of 9/11 and the most politically correct.
I'm not in the least bit suprised you can't find anyting about the KKK through official means as the issues concerning these types of people are far more subtle and intricate than that. It has been the USA's policy for a while now to present racists and extremists as a rediculous minority, just as you do, but this is historically risky if you think of German treatment of the Nazis in the late 1920s and early 30s. And of course you will have heard of Europian extremists like the German neo-nazis and the Austrian Freedom Party becase of Europe's utter paranoia about returning to pre-WW2 political conditions and the subsequent media frenzy over here every time there is even the slightest wiff of a swastica.
The following seems stupid saying it to an american who must be surrounded by its evidence, but I think your idea about afros' and hispanics' complete personal responsibility as 'individuals' for what crimes they commit is rather nieve. If a soldier goes into a war fighting for Al-Kaeda then he certainly is responsible to some extent for his own crimes because he can save lifes by not fighting. Yet if he is young and has never been educated to a greater extent than "americans are the infadel and must be killed according to this holy book here which you must accept your leader's interpretation of or die and go to hell" then his responsability is diminished. It is further diminished by the fact that he lacks the power to call off the entire war or part of it as his leaders do sitting behind their desks in some secret cave headquarters. Similarly, it is bordering on insanity to try and make out that ghettos, gang violence, slipping into the easy option of becoming a drug
dealer because its what people expect from ethnics, the police's strict no tolerance policy on minor offences in areas that I'm supposed to believe just happen to be 'black hoods' by coincidence and the lack of opportunities for ethnics from school education options right up to job interviews, is all the fault of the individuals concerned. The individual is never inherantly evil or bad, only the condition that they are imperfect- not quite up to the standard set by the flawless icon Jesus, always holds.
It is always possible to find good in someone at some stage in their life eg. if only Adolf Hitler had not lost his mother when a Jewish doctor gave a wrong dosage of painkiller gas to her, if only someone could have stepped in as a less brutal father figure to him when his real one died, if only he had gone to Munich rather than the anti-semetic Vienna or if one of the art colleges he had applied to had taken him, he might not have come to represent such a figure of evil as various commentators have reluctantly admitted that he was not without artistic talent. So the nature of a particular generation is determined by the actions and effect caused by previous generations, either a good or evil lingering ghost in what it has come to represent, and this can be tracked back until you reach the iconic discovery of human kinds flawed nature as represented in some way by the wonderfully informative story of Adam & Eve.
And then there is your denial that the US has a gun problem - you have never had a gun pulled on you in your life and only know 4 people who have had some encounter with one. Take a guess how many times I, or anyone I know has had a gun pulled on them while anywhere in Europe - zero. On the other hand, a friend of mine, David Beattie, worked as a cruise ship chef for many years and would have to fly out the US west coast to begin his trip sometimes and on his only visit to LAs main airport terminal a man standing next to him in line for a shuttle bus was attacked by two hooded men with what appeared to be machine guns. The victim's briefcase was stolen as eveyone in the area dropped to the floor, then once it was over most people got up and proceded to walk on without any particular shock . You mention the IRA but the guns that British soldiers have at the, now abandoned, checkpoints are often
unloaded and are essentially there to deter religiously motivated riots in sensitive spots and the IRA themselves do not carry guns out on the street with them- their members are given very specific missions to go into a particular protestant bar or home and kill one union leader or something of that nature and weapons are not obtained in the hardware store round the corner, they are secretly smuggled in from the middle east . Otherwise they have their well known bomb tactics which they have increasingly tended to rely on, which falls way outside any gun use prevention methods. Presently, there is a sustained and possibly permanent ceasefire and people from mainland UK go to Ireland on holiday in large numbers. I'll quite happily admitt that the situation in Ireland and with the ETA Basque terrorists in Spain is not exactly ideal, but I'm NOT criticising US policies because I'm in competition with you and trying to make Europe's overall structure seem somehow superior, I'm just saying that our flaws don't suddenly make yours disappear- afterall no-!
one's proposing that we recreate multiple EU's on other planets so we accept that we have some major problems- particularly to do with bureaucracy and incompetent, corrupt leaders at present - anything else would just be arrogance.
Our UK police are usually not armed, which has occasionally resulted in the death of policemen in eg. rougher areas in London, but the intention is that if this happens at least the relatives of the dead know that their loved one never yielded to violence, retaliation, agression and cruelty - they were heroes in the truest sense, losing in the moment in order to win at life in the longrun, not perpetuating any cycles of abuse, a story constantly reiterated in the Bible in as obvious places as the crucifiction. And I'm sure you'll be able to quote some passage that suggests we must literally stand up and fight with our fists in the face of 'evil' from the book of Kings or something like that, drawing on your expertise, but I believe that you would be overlooking the obvious to serve your own ambitions. I guess it comes down to what kind of freedom you want - the freedom to own a gun and make you and your loved ones feel safe at the cost of others
right to live without perpetual fear, or the freedom to accidentally stumble into someone else's front yard at night or walk down a street where the other people don't have the same coloured skin as you without having your head blown to bits.
So is my view of america so distanced and hollywood influenced (I've been to the US 4 times for a total of 2 months) ? And if it were hollywood influenced, as I know some people's views are in Europe, would it be entirely valueless - movies don't appear out of thin air eg. the movie 'JFK' with Kevin Costner makes all the points about the downside of the american way of life and how it can descend into vile corruption because of the power struggles at its heart- but also the wonderful dream which the US used to seem to be and also a way which america could move forward accepting the truth about its past and present difficulties while at the same time maintaining optimism.
You're also concerned that someone might question how your personal opinion might not be entirely consistent with the bible - the book that people like to call the opinion of God. I noticed how you dismissed some young guy on your web site's questions asked section, when he took offence at the phrase 'limited Judeo-Christian democracy'. The message then proceeded to try and insult you in response to your opinions calling you a 'loser'. Then I noticed that you had replied to the message challenging this guy to call Christ or God a loser when he faced his judgement day. Yet this angry message was clearly not intended as blasphemy because firstly, you can't blaspheme against something you don't believe in from his point of view, and secondly, his critisism was directed at you not God, and was a fairly reasonable objection- OK so you think a Judeo-Christian democracy has been the most successful
system on this planet and therefore will be on extended human territories- but this is opinion not fact, and so in taking such a major planetary decision, it needs to be validated by some sort of a referendum or vote even if it is only a privately funded temporary measure because we don't know what significance the first implemented system may have in the future. Have you appointed yourself as a representative of God's opinion- what gives you the right to do that? -surely this is blasphemy. Why exclude Islam, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism and so on, if you're going to take a religious stance in governing Mars- if you think Judaism & Christianity are superior this is opinion yet again -and one that millions of people will have a problem with.
I'm also aware that you wish to have different agendas competing for supremesy to counterbalance imposing your system initially - but in defining the conditions in which different opinions compete (an economy, trade with earth for profit, a traditional democracy, a religious influence...etc) you have ensured that extraterrestrial colonies will always have a taste of USA in them even if this is categorically against the wishes of the ordinary people making up the majority of the population.
If you think this kind of opposition is impossible from 'reasonable minded' people, take the example of one of your other connected views that I found on interzonga.com : creationalism. Over here last week there was a furious reaction to the news that a school called 'emanuel college' , Gateshead, was teaching creationalism as an alternative theory to evolution in science lessons. If creationalism is just as simple as teaching children about the wonderful inspiring story that you can find in genesis in an arts based class no-one has any particular objections - nothing is being forced upon developing children- they may take from it what they like - enjoyment as you might enjoy a fairytale, a grander metaphorical meaning that seems reassuringly consistent with any other theory, or a literal meaning if they are that way inclined. On the other hand, creationalism in science lessons was hotly contested in parliment.
The lessons were complemented with an argument to try and point out every minute flaw they can find in evolution as if this undermines it (when infact there is no scientific theory that is experimentally perfect). This confusion of the boundaries between inertial frames which science and theology operate within, as I discussed in the last email, is highly dangerous and opressive, yet bizzarely the Prime Minister, Tony Blair, took no objection. Many have commented that this was the result of him sending his own children to a christian based school.
If you don't see any problem with the school's actions, as I suspect you might not considering that you can'y discuss unrelated subjects to do with land ownership without mentioning building your own christian school, then maybe you'll listen to a fellow christian, the Bishop of Oxford:
"This attempt to see the Book of Genesis as a rival to scientific truth stops people taking the Bible seriously. Biblical literalism brings not only the Bible but Christianity itself into disrepute...Creationalism- as distinguished from a belief in creation - is not an alternative scientific theory. It is not even a proper way of interpreting the Bible and it certainly shouldn't be taught to children. Evolution is a very stimulating idea which expands our understanding of God the creator...To call science a faith position is to misuse the term 'faith' ."
So I'm not so sure about your ethical plan and as to your scientific one - Diemos is covered by a thick dust atmosphere because it used to be an asteroid so how can this be a safe place for mining equipment - Phoibos is closer - but scientists agree that the main problem that has to be solved on Mars is the complicated, finely balanced technique for warming and stablising Mars. Some of your ideas about oxygen production seem a bit improbable aswell, due to transportation of equipment difficulties.
You seem anxious and confused regarding why the USA is hated by so many people, as we saw with the grenade bombing of the american ambassador's chuch in Islamabad, Pakistan, by muslim extremists yesterday. I'm not condoning extremism or anger for a minute, but look at it from their point of view : I'll bet they were watching the St.Patrick's day celebrations in New York and saw the procession of starred and striped flags down from time square, remenisant of a scene from 1940s Berlin. 'Flag-waving' is an expression that the European press use to describe the attitude associated with the wave of worryingly nationalistic patriotism that has swept over the US after 9/11, allowing Bush a freeticket to perform as many tests and deploy as many troops as he likes without consulting his own or other nations' people. This irritates europeans and asians, and particularly muslims, who tend not to think in terms of
nations and more in terms of the muslim world or muslim areas in a rather admirably collective responsibility type way - it's ashame that it wasn't something other than religion that united them. Muslim folklore refers to a powerful empire that opresses outsiders and came to a catastrophic end and its people are the 'infadel' an arrogant and stupid sub-human race of people that Muslims are supposed to oppose in the name of Allah. This isn't really derived from anything from the Quaran and is very reluctantly discussed among peaceful Muslims - but desperate people who find it difficult to survive in principled non-capitalist countries that are in economic competition with capitalist countries, find it easy to place the USA into the story.
On some points you seem anxious to try and pigeonhole my views, so just to clarify, at the moment:
1) I am not a commi that thinks all land should be public land and don't support any political wings or movements as in my view all aspects of the politics we know have failed in some major way.
2) I don't believe in, or particularly like, any religion including rather pretentious new age ones, but I do believe in just about all the ancient holy texts and with respect to the bible the idea of God, Jesus and the holy spirit.
3) I do not hate the USA, and in fact hope to live there one day for a period of my life as I find it a very interesting country with just as many pluses and clever people as it has negatives. My oposition is to the american goverment and not all americans therefore.
4) I don't mind judging movements or ideas but I do take objection to judging people as I believe people are judged by life after they are dead , plus anything they do has not arisen out of good or bad that is purely within them but instead has come from their enviroment resulting in a relationship and responsibility that links all human beings, meaning that as long as people live they still have the capability to do great things.
Y.S. RJS
|
April 03, 2002
Dear Mr. Smith:
Thank you for your reply and for giving me the opportunity to carry on a debate with you about some very important topics. I would like to respond to two general themes which you discussed in you letter. However, I would first like to make the comment that using made-up terms such as the "KKK weekly" is not exaggerated humor but, rather, misinformation. Attacking another person's culture using lies such as these does not soften the blow of any discussion about culture, but, rather, turns it into an emotional argument. It was the use of such inflammatory terms that made me apply the term "vitriolic" to your first letter. Anyways, I still enjoy the discussion because I think debate helps the participants come to a clearer understanding of their own views and those of others.
I notice that you seem very determined to depict the United States as a racist society and you seem to base much of that on the image of American life which the media presents. The media makes money only by presenting what is unusual. Nobody is going to watch a news show about white and black kids playing ball together in an integrated middle class American neighborhood nor by showing members of different races working together as professionals and coworkers. However, a show on a very unusual occurrence such as a cross burning by the KKK will generate an enormous audience for the very fact that it is unusual and somewhat evil. Therefore, the media and Hollywood are not going to present a view of the United States that represents life in mainstream America. Why would anyone want to watch that? Most of us in American already live it. If I want to see what life in a middle class American suburb is like with all the neighborhood kids playing ball in the cull-de-sac out front and friend and neighbors having a Saturday evening barbeque in the back yard I'll just go home and invite some friends over. That is much better than a movie because it is real. We go to movies and watch TV to see fantasy. This can be evil fantasy or good fantasy, but it is fantasy nevertheless. A small minority of individuals actually live in a fantasy world and making a movie which takes the form of a documentary portraying their life is the best fantasy of all because it is "real" fantasy. That is what a documentary about the KKK is all about. It is the media using a handful of weird people with too much time on their hands living in some isolated community in the middle of a Louisiana swamp in order to make tons of money for the networks.
Racism was a horrible problem in this country up to about fifty years ago. However, black Christian pastors were instrumental in ending institutionalized racism, that is, Southern Apartheid. Since then the problem of racism (defined either as institutional separation of the races or as the belief of individuals in the genetic superiority of their own race) has dwindled into insignificance as a problem in the United States. It is important to remember that slavery was a curse inflicted upon the Western Hemisphere by the European colonial powers. The Spanish, British, French, Dutch and Portuguese all brought slaves to their colonies. It has taken us many years to clean up the mess which the European powers bequeathed us. That is why the Martian nation should be independent from the very beginning of colonization. Terran nations will want to exploit Mars for their own benefit without any concern for the future well-being of the descendants of the Martian settlers.
Nevertheless, this country faces a unique problem which countries in Europe, Asia, and Africa do not confront. This problem is the existence of two very different nations within one country. Blacks make up 10% of the population of the country but most of them live in places where they make up 20-30% or more of the population. It is difficult for a group of that size to be absorbed into a majority population. This makes the race problem in the United States a long term problem. Furthermore, blacks and white "Anglos" are very different. Not only is there an obvious difference in appearance, more importantly, there is also a difference in the emotional make-up and behavior of the two groups, and this is reflected in a difference in culture. Of all the peoples of the Earth, the Northern Europeans and the Sub-Saharan Africans are about as different from each other as they come. Neither is superior to each other, they are simply different. The United States as a country is like an Intel/Microsoft computer with Macintosh parts and application programs. The majority Intel/Microsoft platform is in no way superior or inferior to the minority Apple Macintosh platform. However, when one puts parts of one into the other it creates problems but at the same time creates opportunity.
The fact that such radically different people are able to co-exist in the same country in relative harmony shows the strength of the American system, not its weakness. After all, white European French have had strong disagreements with their white European German neighbors and they both have had a hard time getting along with their white European Russian neighbors to the point that they have dragged the world into two world wars and a global cold war in the last century and have come close to lowing up the world and ending life as we know it. If it had not been for the coming of the Americans to rescue Europe, the Europeans probably WOULD have succeeded in bowing themselves up. Africa is no better. Tribes within the same country go to war against other tribes so that first one tribal faction and then another take over the country, rape it financially and murder their opponents. After some time the opposition gathers enough strength to do the same. The middle east is no better. The Jews and the Arabs have been in an almost constant state of war for over fifty years since the creation of the state of Israel and even the Moslem Iranians and the Moslem Iraqis have been unable to live in peace. Yet these people come to America and live in relative peace and harmony. The last time there was open war in North America was during the American civil war which took place in the early part of the 1860's. Since then, Canada, Mexico, and the United States have been at peace with each other while the rest of the world slaughters each other. Is this because we have created the master race here in the United States? Of course not, it is because the United States government and society, to a greater extent that any other in the world is based on Judeo-Christian principles and when these principle are put into practice they work to produce peace and prosperity.
These Judeo-Christian principles of government were revealed primarily through Moses who also taught that an ancient civilization existed on Earth which was destroyed through a global cataclysmic flood. It is interesting that as one looks at a map of Mars several features stand out. The Northern low lands appear smooth and craterless. The only known water icecaps on Mars sit in the middle of these lowlands and are two miles thick in places. A huge impact basin called the Hellas Basin is a conspicuous feature of the southern hemisphere. Almost directly opposite this feature, on the northern hemisphere is a region containing massive shield volcanoes called the Tharsis Montes and the Olympus Mons and they are the source of extensive lava flows in that region. Adjacent to this volcanic region is Noctis Labyrinthus the origin of a gigantic canyon system called Valles Marineris. This canyon runs through an area of progressively more extensive cratering until it disappears into the craterless northern lowlands. I believe that the most straight forward explanation for the origin of these features is the theory that a large asteroid crashed into Mars depositing fantastic quantities of energy as it carved out the Hellas Basin. This energy raced through the planet in the form of a shock wave which became refocused on the region of the planet directly opposite the point of impact (the counter-coup site). There the resulting heat created reservoirs of magma which triggered extensive vulcanism. Associated with this activity was the ejection of massive quantities of subterranean water, enough to carve a huge chasm and perhaps to create an ocean in the northern hemisphere. The sediments created by the impact debris and by the action of the flow of water were deposited in the bottom of that ocean, covering all the ancient craters. Eventually the ocean evaporated and the water was deposited as a huge polar icecap. Mars then returned to its present state.
I propose that the same thing happened on Earth about ten thousand years ago. A large comet or asteroid slammed into the Earth at high velocity. This caused a rupture at the counter-coup site which resulted in the ejection of vast quantities of highly pressurized subterranean water located in pockets underneath the continents. This water is the result of the action of hydrogen, generated by radioactive decay, on the oxygen contained in minerals. This ejection of water carved a large chasm through the middle of the ancient single continent, Pangea, and triggered massive vulcanism. This vulcanism, which was located near the center of the chasm caused Pangea to split at the chasm and drift apart. The water flooded the entire planet and buried all living creatures under hundreds to thousands of meters of sediments produced by the impact and by the erosion which created the chasm. The floor of this chasm now forms the middle of the mid-Atlantic and mid-oceanic ridges. Tectonic activity caused the continents and mountains to rise and the world was repopulated by the few survivors of the cataclysm. A prediluvian scientist/priest was able to foresee the cataclysm and was able to escape with his family by preparing a large sea worthy vessel. However, the warm ocean waters, heated by the shock waves of the impact combined with the cool air which resulted from the "nuclear winter" effect of the atmospheric dust from the impact and these two conditions created abnormal quantities of precipitation in the northern latitudes in the form of snow which became deposited as a huge icecap which covered much of the northern hemisphere creating what we call the ice ages. Eventually the icecap melted and here we are. That, in a nutshell is creationism, at least my version of it. I challenge you to find fault with the ability of this theory to explain the geological features present in either planet. It explains the extinction of the dinosaurs and trilobites, it explains the continental drift, it explains the ice ages and it explains the mass burial of whole herds of animals in the geological column.
There is one point on which I think that we do agree. I think that there are people in high positions in the United States government who are out to destroy the USA as an independent sovereign nation and who are trying to impose a socialistic government upon the whole world. They seem to be using the threat of Islamic terrorism as a tool to achieve that goal. On the other hand, Islamic terrorists seem to be using fringe white antisemitic groups in the United States to further their own agenda. Apparently Dennis Mahon, a leader of one of the groups which calls itself the KKK and who is also a leader of a group called the White Arian Resistance received thousands of dollars from the Iraqui government. Furthermore, Terri Nichols, a convicted accomplice of Timothy McVeigh and co-conspirator in the Oklahoma City Murrah building bombing reportedly attended a meeting in the predominantly Muslim Filipino island of Mindanao in the 1990's where he apparently met with Ramzi Yousef, the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and a suspected agent of Saddam Hussein. Furthermore, early news reports described a middle-eastern man as a likely suspect in the Murrah building bombing. This man was later identified by a reporter for a local radio station as Hussain Al-Hussaini, an Iraqi and a former soldier in Saddam Hussein's army. Many witnesses place him in company with McVeigh in the days leading to the attack and other witnesses place him near the Murrah building before the explosion. Several Iraqi phone numbers were apparently found in McVeigh's possesion after the bombing. Apparently Oklahoma City is home to an important cell in the Arab terrorist network and prospective highjacker Zacarias Moussaoui took flight lessons in Oklahoma City among other places. Most of this information comes from various issues of the magazine called "The New American" and more information can be found at www.thenewamerican.com/focus/okc/ .
There is other evidence that links the Oklahoma City bombing to the recent World Trade Center bombing. However, this information has been suppressed by the US government. Therefore, it is possible that the US government is being infiltrated by international globalists. Nevertheless, if this is the case, it is a threat that is foreign to the American System and which is an assault on that system. Many of these traitors are probably American by birth by not American in philosophy. What I want to establish on Mars is a system based on Judeo-Christian principles, similar to the American system, but one with more safeguards in place to prevent the gradual takeover of the Martian government by people who oppose freedom and justice.
I am sorry it took me so long to write back. This time my excuse is that I was upgrading my computer system and ran into some unexpected glitches. I hope you will write back. I plan to post our exchanges soon as I promised you.
Sincerely,
Raul E. Lopez
|
April 04, 2002
I was wondering why you state opinion as fact. This is one of the primary reasons why I can accept ancient scriptures but not the religions which suck of them like parasites and dont appear to be able derive any meanings from them that arent consistent with an agenda which involves proving their superiority over other people.
eg. You talk of a historical figure that resembles Noah (and the ark) of the bible. They are actually on their way (in your country's universities) to proving that the myth of noah refers to a similar historical figure who saved a sample of animals and people from a large area in the middle east that was flooded in the creation of the black sea. Nevertheless you seem to talk down to me as if I am some misinformed inferior who is not gifted with a belief in a literal interpretation of the bible. Opinion again.
Your opinion that evil socialist (alias communist) forces are still infiltrating an otherwise perfect american system is bizarre. The cold war is over now, you can give it up. You will not conceed that the US has any significant problems among its ordinary people yet you go on to list even more detailed symtoms of problems than I did previously.
Socialism is not a position that I support at all, but I do not think it is any more evil than the mild form of facism that you are proposing. My position is roughly the same as George Orwell's, where as yours seems to be derived from a distanced, illinformed fear of anything that talks about 'the right of working men to have a decent living before we start on any more complicated problems'.
Another nonsensecle feature of your argument is your incistance to distance americas problems from europe's when infact they are intertwined. Europe did not bring its problems to america, like slavery, europe or europeans went to america - most americans and american views are derived from europeans at some point in their past - you seem to think that a perfect american philosophy was pulled out of the air- but if you look at something as simple as town planning to a set formula 'the american main street' and so on (something I quite like in moderation) -this came from french ideas, the ideas which they used to design washington DC center.
This is a bit like youre strange attitude to native indian americans in a previous mail - okay so you dont want to sit around in a teeppe- you want progress, fine - but thats not a criticism of them - thats not a reason to disagree with the peaceful notions that surrounded their philosophy until they were provoked into war, they didnt want to stop youre progress they just didnt want to be forced into anything themselves. (Bring on the stories about evil barbarians cutting off scalps .. same old, same old- wouldnt of happened widespread if people had negociated and respected instead of dominating and dictating).
And dont think Im pro-media either -Im more than aware of the spin they place on things and the way that we cant really trust the way that a biased form of history is recorded - but their is a body of objective fact eg. gangland violence and organised crime is a greater problem in the US than in any other country statistically outside of south africa- on deaths and crimes.
Now no-one ever said that this is the majority of the american population or that it exists in whatever cosy middle class suburb youre idea of reality exists in, but does this mean that any problems are collatoral, proportionally insignificant damage - someone is bleeding to death right now in the US because theyve been shot - no-one is bleeding to death in the UK right now because theyve been shot, and this isnt because the USA is bigger.
If someone voices an opinion that indicates an extreme problem in america (eg. there are ridiculously communities of mainly afr.amrcs who live a few miles away from the white house in a bad suburb of washington who are illiterate - maybe only 1000 but theyre not just going to disappear because theyre a minority) I cant just dispense of it because you say that its not a reality for you - you are only one opinion - I must listen to everyone and weigh up the possibilities to find something closer to the truth. You say I cant trust any of the media - but how do I know I can trust you !? - How do I know you are not a green eyed businessman who salivates at night thinking of how rich he'll become from mining extraterr. minerals?.
Jewish communities were large in europe pre-ww2 but they were a minority statistically at 20 odd million. Does this mean that we could have accepted them as collatoral damage if Hitler had offered us a package saying no more deaths of anyone but the Jews of Germany and no more war - of course not - so many usually peaceful civilians were dragged into war because they saw it as the only option other than ignoring ideological facist tyranny.
And america may have saved my life literally but they did not save europe ideolically (they didnt save my soul, as it were)-they had more bodies and more/better weapons. They didnt arrive with some clever superior solution - they just bolstered our side in the same violent conflict.
And dont even try to start claiming that the were being entirely selfless - they were not drawn into the war entirely out of sympathy -they were seeking revenge for pearl harbour. But this is all obvious - I dont even know why Im having to say this.
You incriminate yourself by saying:
"What I want to establish on Mars is a system based on
Judeo-Christian principles, similar to the American system, but one with more
safeguards in place to prevent the gradual takeover of the Martian government by
people who oppose freedom and justice." that is youre OPINION of people who oppose freedom and youre version of justice.
So to me this seems frightfully like a mild form of facism, as you cant stand for freedom if you want to have 'safeguards' to prevent things ever changing fundamentally - because freedom and democracy are inherantly risky (proof that they are worthwhile) as they should in theory allow fundamental change eg. the rejection of a religions influence on govermental proceedings. What if the majority of martians reject religion in the future (Im not saying this would be 'right' -Im just saying hypothetically) - but the ruling class of people who would be preserving youre 'safeguards' (a.k.a. dictats) would not allow this in the 'justice' system - so there would be a clear conflict between 'freedom' and youre idea of 'justice'.
Maybe a clarification of the details of what you think the original pure 'american philosophy' is, rather than slightly dogmatic quotes from your web page, would be useful.
|
Some after thoughts (a continuation of our interesting..etc)
April 07, 2002
Re: from Mr RJS
The more I think about your responses in general the more I see you have an almost pre-planned agenda and sometimes youre not really responding as much as giving me the party line.
It seems clear that you wish to try and link together a globalised conspiracy-like theory that involves 'socialism' infiltrating the USA, like socialism is some exotic and evil eastern force. Since I am more or less opposed to the limited ideas you have for the developement of political-like strategies on mars or new extentions of human territories in general, or lack of developement would probably be better, its fairly clear that you also have standardised the argument into "I am a right wing conservative" and "he is a left wing socialist" , regardless of the warning I gave you before that I am not a supporter of socialism, which seems to a euphamism for communism judging by the way you use the word in linking it with extremism. I also found it rather strange how after mentioning that McVeigh was involved with a Nazi-like white supremesist religious group, but unfortunately forgot to mention the iraqi side of the
unconfirmed theory, you leapt in and made an association between Iraq to Globilisation to socialism, and suddenly McVeigh seemed to be turning into a communist. If you put our accounts together it would probably sound like the way that Hitler took a piece of Stalins propoganda, reversed the positions of the victim and oppressor and regurgitated the story to his people in response to the attack on imperialism (facism). Don't get me wrong here : Im not saying youre extreme right wing but I do find it strange how you subtely managed to turn it into the conservative vs. the socialist > very political > very not me, Im afraid.
George Orwell, only a commentator on and not a supporter of left wing politics (before he's turned into Karl Marx's love-child), once said :
" ...Underneath this lies the hard fact, so difficult for many people to face, that individual salvation is not possible, that the choice before human beings is not, as a rule, between good and evil but between two evils. You can let the facists rule the world; that is evil, or you can overthrow them by war, which is also evil. There is no other choice before you, and whichever you choose you will not come out with clean hands. ....We only have the chance of choosing the lesser evil and of working for the establishment of a new kind of society in which common decency will again be possible. There is no such thing as neutrality in this war. The whole population of the world is envolved in it...."
So the second world war which he was commenting on is over now, and indeed there was a peace and improved common decency for a while in which we tried to build a new society. But we failed miserably because we clung onto milder versions of the left/right wing system with with so called 'liberals' either picking a just-off-centre position or occupying the position of 'pacifists' in orwell's model (a rather hypocritical position).
So to you presumably, this is an argument between centre-left and centre-right and to you capitalist-religious-centre-right is the lesser of two evils and an adequite base to build your marsian philosophy on.
But what if you could escape your white suburban-middle america-secure -distanced from black hoodloms conservatism for a second and join me in looking at the model from a different angle for a second:
The two choices for humans now are between
1) The standard political model: L - CL - C - CR - R
or 2) A temporarily risky, but modern and improved non-political model for goverment. Sort of anarchy, if you prefer that 'vitriolic', 'unamusing', 'offensive' language.
You know, anarchy in the same way that a conserted global unified co-operative effort against facism was anarchic in WW2 compared to the orthadox fragmented nature of the world prior to that event. Anarchic in the same way that factory and arable farm workers from puerto rico said 'screw this - I'll take my chances in a country with more freedom like the USA if you dont mind'.
So which is the lesser of two evils in this choice, which one, regardless of the risks that any pioneering activity must suffer, basically stands for progress and which one basically stands for a hang-over from the past that has turned sinister in a modern context, as I discussed before ?
The more I think about how you want to repeat the USA on other planets with your 'Judeo-Christian Democracy' and so forth, the more Im beginning to think you've actually contradicted yourself because if you repeated the process which made america on other planets you wouldn't end up with multiple USAs as you know it, you'de end up with colonies that get progressively more and more liberated, just like the USA was a leap forward from the old European power structures. If you still believe that you can literally repeat USA on other planets then presumably you're saying - it can't get any more liberterated - with some minor 'safeguard' modifications it will be perfect. But I can invisage several more major progressions forward to a greater freedom beyond the US system - thats no disrespect to the icons that pushed us on into the modern world, Im just saying I think the feat can be repeated.
For a start, the new system would include a way of unifying the globe or whatever world it is youre dealing with without what you call globalisation - which Im confused as to your oposition to because you seemed to be supporting capitalism which is often a major factor in globalisation - oh no, thats right, its all socialism, and thats what Im supposed to be right, sorry sometimes I forget.
There would have to be improvements to the structure of the UN (or equivelant on mars) to allow for unified efforts to end war and pollution and similarly universal problems but peripheral power for nations and sub-nations so that nationalities didnt feel like more subjectively interpretible issues were not being solved by forced-upon solutions. So there would be a unified co-operation rather than facist/communist style globalisation (as your own Pres W. Wilson once envisaged).
The motto of the new system would be "Provide Freedom for Everyone to do as they wish, but never at the cost of denying another persons identical right to freedom."
There would have to be an effort to get every person up to a decent living standard before work could begin on more advanced issues - but never a tolerance of discrimination whether that be towards the poorer or even the more affluent - equality - equal treatment' - for everyone as a basic requirement - not just for the ordinary secondary industry masses that provide the most votes (as left-w made the mistake of believing). This would be hypocritical and just as bad as having landed gentry controlling a power hierarchy. On the other hand goverment philosophy should never merge with business-economic philosophy - the goverments place should be to serve its people and back them up with essentials, not rule over them and dominate their independant success.
Essential services would include health, public-transport, public-recreation land, pollution prevention and other humanitarian efforts. There would have to be a way of avoiding the way that benefit systems are misused by the unscrupulous section of the unemployed and disadvantaged public. So say instead of a full benifit system there could be limited goverment industries for the unemployed to become envolved with along with a portion of the less skilled labourers - but not ones that could compete on the open market crippling normal companies as socialism made the mistake of doing. These goverment manufacturers would supply goverment run outlets which would accept only an alternative form of currency provided alongside the normal stock exchange currency, and could not be used for financial trading or banking - again so that it wouldn't interfere with business. The currency would be available for any non-profit
private business, goverment employees or non-profit research and developement institutes. The alternative currency would be based on a rigid time principle eg. 1 unit for every 1 minute of work, so that its value in these goverment outlets and non-profit businesses could not change (I know goverment outlets sounds socialist but socialism would not allow other private business to continue unhampered individually). If housing was to be paid for by the currency it would have to be rented from the goverment or bought under the condition that it couldn't be sold for a stock exchange currency - so that people couldn't profit at the cost of people with privatised housing. The stock exchange and banking would be made entirely of private national organisations and their currencies and run by representatives in economic parliments elected by private-business employees and it would be made illegal for the goverment to tamper with it.
Basically what all this means is that people could escape the old fight between capatalism and socialism if they wanted but could just as easily embrace it - and if any of the measures began to disadvantage either side then it would have to be rectified to ensure it was fair. What this would mean is that old politics would be in competition with non-politics and people would decide for themselves in a fair and unbiased enviroment which one was better - they would decide whether they wanted your reliable-unchanging-dictated future or my dynamic future for themselves rather than having 'safeguards' imposed upon them to prevent them from rebelling.
The point of all this is that if youre looking for a fight between socialism and conservatism youve come to the wrong place because even if something I say is not well thought out enough and sounds a bit lefty it is never my intention to do head down that road and I will avoid it wherever I notice it because I am just as afraid of the world portrayed in the novel "1984" as you have demonstrated you are with your insistance on linking modern socialism to some grand satanic conspiracy in this present political climate - and apparently Im the one that has been manipulated by the media.
Ive also remembered another instance when the media and hollywood was actually deftly right about american culture : There was a couple of terrorist action movies released last year - the well known one was called 'the siege' with denzel washington. The first one predicted an attack on the united states from its weakness at that time - the commercial flight space - and it actually went as eerily close to the truth as predicting that the whitehouse and pentagon would be hit - which of course was attempted at and was partly succesful in reality. They did not just invent the premise for these plots - they were heavily researched with the help of military experts. The more well known movie 'the siege' was boycotted by the papers because political correctness was particularly fashionable at that time and the movie depicted muslim extremists as a danger to the US - which they found racist to american-arabs.
They actually went as far as basing a character on Islama BinLaden. There were various other predictions about the new type of opposition and biological terrorism which the united states would have to combat now and the general theme of each prediction has come true. Some of the researchers that worked on these projects have now been drafted in by the CIA to help anylise secuirity risks for the future.
So you see there can be a well informed objective body of facts even if hollywood does need to dramatise these. It seems to me that you select the questionable opinions of media products which suite your agenda and use the rest as a way of criticising anyone like me who doesnt agrre with you. You cant have it both ways.
|
April 15, 2002
Dear Mr. S:
I have posted your e-mails as promised and I am working on a reply which I
will get to you shortly.
Sincerely,
Raul E. Lopez
|
April 16, 2002
Mr Raul Lopez
My first inclination is to thank you for being open enough to post other views on your site ? But I was wondering whether you grouped them under 'Orwellian socialist', especially confusing considering that I categorically stated that I wasn't a socialist several times - I don't know if youre aware of the problems that trade unions are causing over hear right now - there's no way I would be a part of that.
There are very few things which offend me and you can feel free to call me whatever names you wish, but to insult a literary giant is either a rather clever, though slightly devious, strategic comment to try and provoke me into some sort of reaction - anger? laughter? - (its quite difficult to read someone that pretends to talk so authoritativly on everything) OR ignorance with regard to what Orwell stood for.
The obvious example of how Orwell did not have any noticable leaning to the left was 'animal farm' - have you actually read any of his books - as a young man he did have socialist leanings but by the time he came to write his books he most certainly was extremely cynical about left wing politics in any form.
His diaries and essays were published in the later stage of his life and categorically state his utter repulsion with both sides of the political divide. If you cannot agree with what seems perfectly obvious to me then at least provide proof that there is any value in this rather narrow minded assumption about Orwell before you go advertising that your american republican website fans can laugh at the 'Orwellian socialist'.
Presumably now you will be assuming : " I think he doth protest too much " - but if you could understand the true power of Orwell that transends pety politics and moves into far wiser ground, you would see why I have to make this objection. To me its like saying "Jesus was an elitist" - I can't just ignore that sort of thing.
|
April 16, 2002
Dear Mr. S,
As per your request I took off the term Socialist and simply left it as
Orwellian. I have read essays where Orwell called a socialist even though I
have never read his works myself. Actually, the essay was making a case
that he was a globalist, not so much that he was a socialist. I think that
we actually agree on more than you think. The thing is that you tend to
identify me as a right wing capitalist facist even though I am not, just as
some of the things you said initially made me tend to identify you as a left
wing socialist. I am not trying to replicate the current or even the
historical United States in space. I am trying to promote the idea of
creating a nation in space that replicates the vision which many (but not
all) of the early American colonists held. The people of the United States,
more than those of any other country still hold to some of these ideals.
Furthermore, I believe in free enterprise, not capitalism. There is a
difference between the two. I will write back a more detailed letter soon
which explains my definition of the American system.
Sincerely,
Raul E. Lopez
|
April 17, 2002
Dear Mr R.Lopez
I wasn't instructing or requesting you to change your own website- you can do as wish, but thanks for listening anyway (but I am suspicious about the tone in which you say 'globalist' judging on previous messages.. we'll see).
Besides this, I never said you were actually personally a facist, an extremist - to my knowledge youre not a Nazi or anything. All Ive done is identify that your views are consistent with conservatism and if this is wrong then would I be wrong in predicting you vote republican and dislike any kind of significant social policy- give me something that contradicts this belief - Ive explained why Im not a socialist. Any theory holds true until a contradictory case has been proven.
If you are saying you only agree with the idea of progress like some non-right wing american's then you have changed the story - if youve changed youre mind about something you can just say it, you don't have to pretend like you always believed it, eg. Ive learned from you how south america originated USA citizens have a more accute fear of returning to a left wing poverty than most americans because of their awareness and understanding of where they came from - I wasnt so aware of that before because when europians think of hispanics in the US they think of families that have immigrated in more recent times than yours. One of several other things I learned was something closer to the reality of what the self-sufficient wild west settlers had. Also- how this was so comparitively liberating that people want to try and replicate it somehow, because it is far enough in the past that it can become legend and the violence and cruelty that accompanied it can be overlooked !
and seperated from being the responsiblity of the 'american dream'ers - but as Ive mentioned before (orwell) ignoring a problem and claiming to be a dreaming pacifist is no better than helping the oppressors.
But this true, original, perfect american philosophy does not exist - we can take elements ideas connected to the phrase 'the american dream' and use them in the future, but there is no specific unified series of perfect american philosphies/policies that exists -Id love it if it did but its a fantasy, like the british and the value of their monarchy, and this unrealistic romanticism holds back change. It seems harmless but its actually really dogma but because we live in a western 'free-speech' (another romance) culture we're unafraid of it.
These extremist muslim groups and so forth are like serial killers - theyve correctly identified a general problem with how they are treated (the problem that we are blind to because of our media and goverment) but like a killer they channel their concerns into negative anger and hate and destruction results.
If on the other hand you have used these elements and have some new definition of an american dream that could be very positive, but its not the same thing:
"the vision which many (but not all) of the early American colonists held" - this is the fiction, the early colonists who did not agree with the anti-american dream did not oppose it, they just went on with their own business, which doesnt make them evil or something - but it does mean they were claiming to be pacifists and selfishly denying any responsability, and in the process helping the oppressor. A good philosophy must not only promote freedom, but must also oppose oppression- one is useless without the other.
The same process continues today but instead of indians or slavery we have eg. big-business capitalist philosophy - and although as you quite correctly say, capitalism is not free-enterprise, it is a (failed) method of implementing that reasonable idea - do you have a better one or are you actually consistent-with/tolerating it, because the latter seems to be the case to me ?
YS Mr J S
|
April 19, 2002
Dear Mr. S:
I am going to try to reply to your last three letters in reverse order.
First of all, even though I am open to new ideas, my political views have
not changed during this discussion. Nevertheless, I think that I may have
initially misunderstood your views so I have gained a greater appreciation
for your point of view. Also, I may have been unclear or imprecise in the
way I stated my view. I think that the greatest value of our discussion has
been in understanding each others views better and in the process also
learning to more clearly state ones own view (at least for me). However,
the more I read your second letter after my last full reply, the more I
think that we really do not disagree on much that is very substantive. I
think that you perceive me as a right wing capitalist fascist even though I
am not, just like I appear to have mistaken you for a left wing socialist.
The safeguards I want to put in place are safeguards to prevent freedoms
from being eroded. These would be things like limits on taxation, limits on
government borrowing, more clearly defined constitutional rights of the
citizens and a more clearly defined role for the various branches and levels
of government. I have no problem with giving government role in taking care
of the poor and a role in managing national assets which are almost
impossible to privatize (such as roads, public transportation, parks, etc.).
However, I think that this role should be carefully defined and somewhat
limited. I believe that it is necessary to exercise care in the way that
benefits are handed out because abuse occurs with great ease. As a
physician I frequently see generations of female-led households where young
teenage girls are having several children by different men and living off
the government dole. The fathers are nowhere in sight. It does not take
long for a strata of society where mothers have 3-4 children by their early
twenties to multiply out of control and create a tremendous burden on
society. I see this almost on a daily basis. Nevertheless, I like your
proposed solution of making people work for their government benefits. I
also think that government should encourage private charities and churches
to help as much as possible.
One point where I think we disagree is on the establishment of a planetary
government. I would not be opposed to such a set up in the early stages of
Martian settlement but I think that Mars should eventually be allowed to
divide into about a dozen large republics. I fear global government because
there is no way to escape it. If I disagree with the policies of the United
States, I can move to another country. If someone disagrees with the policy
of, say, the Mexican government they can move to the United States.
Business and capital can do likewise. I believe that this competition for
people and money is healthy and helps preserve freedom. However, if I
disagree with the policies of a global government I must leave the planet to
get away from them. In fact, that is the very reason I am trying to
establish the Martian Federation, so that when global government is, indeed,
established on Earth, people will have a place to which they can flee if the
global government becomes oppressive.
You make an interesting statement at the end of your first reply to my last
full letter. You say that "freedom and democracy are inherantly [sic] risky
. . . [and] should in theory allow [the occurrence of] fundamental change"
However, what should occur if a democracy decides to vote into power a
dictatorial regime and the people vote to curtain the freedoms of all or
some of its citizens? Should that change be allowed because the majority of
voters agreed? Should people be free to take away other peoples freedoms
simply because they got enough voters to agree? A democracy without
constitutional limitation on the power of government becomes the tyranny of
the masses over the minority. A classic example of this was the electoral
victory of the Nazis in Germany which brought Hitler to power. He used the
power of democracy to rob, persecute and murder the Jewish minority. In the
United States we have reached the point where income tax payers are coming
close to constituting less than half of the population. This hard working
minority finances the vast majority of all expenditures by the Federal
Government. However, because we are in the minority, income tax payers have
little say in determining how much of our hard earned income is confiscated
from us. It is interesting that one of the complaints which led to the
secession of the North American colonies from Britain was the existence of
taxation without representation. How much of my income should be robbed
from me annually? How much is fair, and who determines that? Right now the
recipients have the power and the contributors have little say. A gang of
poor hoodlums may overpower a middle-class passer-by and by the power of
numbers rob him of all the money on his person but that is not justice and
our current tax system is no better.
I am a Bible believing Christian and I believe that the book of Genesis is
true and serves as the foundation for Christianity. Yet my money is
confiscated by force and used to support a public school system that teaches
that Noah is a myth. This is not religious freedom, this is a subtle form
of persecution. You say that self proclaimed scholars in American
universities are proving that Noah is a myth based on a person who survived
a black sea flood. In my previous letter I presented evidence that supports
the idea of a planet-wide flood caused by an asteroidal impact. You did not
address my challenge to find a better explanation for the ice ages, for the
mass burial of dinosaurs and for the existence of vertical tree trunks in
coal deposits. You also did not challenge my observation that a similar
flood seems to have occurred on Mars. I presented fact, you countered with
scholarly opinion, but opinion none the less. I disagree with those
self-proclaimed scholars; I should not have to help pay their salaries.
That is no different than making you help pay the salaries of Fundamentalist
Baptist ministers.
Freedom and justice are concepts which must be defined by using philosophy
or religion because democracy does not always produce freedom and justice,
as I just illustrated. The value and worth of a particular from of
government must be judged by its ability to promote freedom and to enforce
justice as concepts these are defined by a particular philosophy or
religion.
Historically, constitutional (which implies written limits on governmental
power) representative democracy seems to produce freedom and justice more
consistently that other systems of government. Nevertheless, a good
monarchy is better than a bad democracy. A constitutional government which
incorporates the best aspects of democracy, oligarchy, and monarchy may be
the best from of government. Nevertheless, the form is not as important as
the content of the laws which are being enforced. These laws are based on
the basic principles of justice which are in turn based on the ideas of the
rights of the individual. The American System is unique because of the
rights and freedoms which it promotes.
Therefore, as you requested, let me define my view of the nature of the
American System. Another way to phrase this concept is as a question. What
are those characteristics of American society that have been the source of
its strength and uniqueness? This does not mean that the United States has
been a perfect example of the principles which make up what I call the
American System, nor does it mean that everyone in this country agrees with
these principles. It does mean that there are certain principles which were
incorporated into the government, institutions, and culture of the American
people to a greater extent than they have been in any other major nation up
to this time. A look at the history of the United States is instructive in
highlighting these principles.
Historically, the first British settlement in what became the United States
was in the South, Jamestown in Virginia. This seems to have been mainly a
commercial endeavor and had little that was different from a typical British
town. The first settlement which was distinctively American was the second
British settlement in what became the USA, Plymouth plantation in what is
now Massachusetts. Plymouth was founded by the Pilgrims, who were members
of a small group of separatist churches in England. Separatist churches
believed in separation or independence of the church from the state, unlike
the Anglican church which was state controlled. Separatists believe that
state control of the church corrupts the church. This is in contrast to the
liberals of today who believe that any influence of religion on the state
corrupts the state. These separatists came to the North American continent
looking for freedom to practice their religion free from fear of
persecution. Half of them died that first winter, but a successful harvest
that next fall ensured their survival and the town which they founded still
survives and has become a prosperous American city. This harvest is honored
with the Thanksgiving holiday which is the most important holiday of a
historical nature and is second in significance and importance only to the
Christmas holiday.
The Pilgrims, who established Congregational churches, were followed by the
Puritans, then by the Baptists, the Quakers, the Shakers, the Anabaptists
(Mennonites and Amish) and the Methodists as well as by representative of
European state churches such as the Anglicans, the Presbyterians, the
Lutherans, Catholics, and of course the Jews.
Therefore, the first and most important American distinctive was freedom of
religion. This is not the same as freedom from religion, since Americans
were and still are deeply religious people. Americans did not view freedom
of religion to be a concept incompatible with the promotion by the
government of the moral principles common to Biblical monotheism just so it
was done in a way that did not favor one particular brand of Biblical
monotheism over the other. Until recently, this is exactly how the American
government operated. Each church was free to practice as they wished and to
compete freely with other churches with little government interference. The
responsibility associated with this freedom is that each church had to had
to forgo financial support by the state and had to raise their own support
by means of voluntary contributions. Lately, government has suppressed
freedom of religion more and more in order to achieve a state of freedom
from religion. A form of secular humanistic atheism has become the
preferred religion of the state and it is promoted through state schools
(public schools), state universities and through state sponsored arts and
media. This is a departure from the American system.
When the pilgrims were on their say to America on the small ship called the
Mayflower, they drew up a short constitution called the Mayflower compact
which would lay the foundations for self government in the new colony. The
second distinctive of the American system is self government by means of a
government whose powers are well defined and limited and whose structure
takes the form of a representative democracy. The duty of such a government
was to preserve freedom by preventing anarchy and lawlessness. By this I
mean that it was supposed to punish criminals and protect the colony from
foreign invaders. However, the main function of modern government has now
shifted to the redistribution of wealth from the working middle class to the
non-working poor and rich. A look at the national budget of any western
nation reveals that redistribution projects constitute a much larger portion
of the budget than the military and the justice system combined. Even
though government has a modest role in helping the poor, massive
redistribution of income as practiced today is socialism. When practiced by
democratically elected governments it is democratic socialism but when
practiced by dictatorships it is communism.
An essential part of maintaining the power of government in check was the
distribution of power among several branches and among several levels.
Executive, judicial, and legislative power is assigned each to its own
branch of government and sate, local, and Federal governments each have
their own distinct sphere of authority. The primary duty of the Federal
government is supposed to be the protection of the autonomy and sovereignty
of the American Nation State. The division of people into independent
nation states is one of the pillars of modern western civilization.
However, in this last century the Federal government of the United States
has continuously increased its power over the states and the cities.
Furthermore, the judicial branch (which is appointed, not elected) and the
executive branch continue to acquire more and more power at the expense of
the congress. Some of this federal power is being handed over to the United
Nations, an international body. The end result of this transfer of Federal
power is the erosion of national sovereignty.
Finally, Americans believed in economic freedom. The foundation for
economic freedom is belief in the private ownership of property, especially
ownership of land. Most of the American Indians (Native Americans) who
lived in North America did not believe in private property. They believed
in the common ownership of land. The pilgrims and many other immigrants
attempted to buy land from the Indians but this concept was foreign to their
culture. This cultural deficiency resulted in their loss of their land.
This idea of the common ownership of property is one of the cornerstones of
socialism. In addition to belief in private property, two other pillars of
economic freedom are the placing of the majority of the resources of a
country in private hands and the promotion of competition by means of free
markets.
Therefore, what I am promoting is simply the establishment of true, genuine
religious freedom, political freedom, and economic freedom within the
context of the nation state model. This is not fascism. Fascism is
nationalistic socialism. The Nazi party, which practiced an extreme form of
fascism was called the Nationalist Socialist party. The name Nazi, in fact,
is an abbreviation of the term national socialism. Communism, on the other
hand is an extreme form of international socialism. Therefore, fascism is
not the opposite of socialism but is a nationalistic form of socialism. The
opposite of socialism is free individualism. I am promoting free
individualism, not fascism. I had read an article where I thought that the
author was accusing George Orwell of promoting a watered down form of
international socialism under the leadership of the English speaking world,
but I admit that I may be mistaken. I see the establishment of a global
government as one of the greatest threats to free individualism. It is
possible that many of the movers behind this globalization are parties
interested in re-establishing a British Empire.
Let me address one more issue which you raised. You said that gangland
violence and organized crime is a greater problem in the United States than
in any other country except South Africa. That is blatantly and
preposterously false. Both of these blights are much more common in most of
Africa and Latin America. As a physician I speak daily with refugees from
Columbia and Central America who have come here to escape high crime and
death threats from organized crime and from communists insurgencies in their
respective countries. Black African nations have an even more horrible
human rights record. It is possible that we may have a higher crime rate
that the other industrialized nations but that is because a significant
portion of our population has come from third world nations and this segment
of the population is in the multi generational process of becoming
civilized. There aren't as many Africans and Hispanics in the UK as there
are in the US, I speak as a Hispanic myself. Again, the issue is depth of
Christianization of the various subcultures, not racial superiority. If
Latin America continues the current process of becoming more deeply
Christianized it will someday become the dominant culture in the world.
I want to end this letter with a question. With which of the ten
commandments do you disagree and why? It is the ten commandments which I
want to make the foundation of Martian Law.
Sincerely,
Raul E. Lopez
|
discussion on federal mars
May 05, 2002
Mr Lopez,
I have tried to quickly compose a reply in my spare time but you raised quite a few complex issues and so obviously there are quite a few responses needed, however I am particularly busy at this time of year, so I will have to get back to you with these at a later date, which is ashame because I was quite looking forward to sharing a few related issues that Ive been learning about with you. Thank you for your reply anyway and I'll respond as soon as I can.
YS JR S,
|
|
|
|
|
